The same will rely on numerous relevant criteria, including the claimant’s standing after the accident, according to a Division Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna.
“The claimant’s pain, suffering, and trauma cannot be compensated in terms of money… there cannot be a straight jacket calculation for the amount of compensation to be granted under the heads, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities and happiness,” the Bench observed.
The judgement stated that the claimant’s and his family’s loss of amenities and pleasure is dependent on a number of circumstances, including the claimant’s post-accident status and whether he is able to enjoy life and/or happiness as he did before the accident.
The amount to which the claimant has lost the benefits of life and happiness will be determined by the facts of each case, according to the Bench.
The Court was considering an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgement and requesting an increase in compensation.
Background
After being involved in a car accident in 2013, the claimant, who was 29 years old at the time, suffered severe brain injuries. He had brain surgery, but even after being released from the hospital, he remained in a coma.
The claimant had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded 94,37,300 as compensation under various heads, including pain and sufferings, loss of future amenities and happiness, and so on, at a rate of 9% per year from the date of the petition until realisation.
Both the insurance company and the claimant were aggrieved, so they went to the High Court, which partially granted the claimant’s appeal and increased the amount of compensation from 94,37,300 to 1,24,94,333 at a rate of 6% per year under the above-mentioned headings.
Angry, the claimant filed this appeal, requesting an increase in the amount of compensation under the headings of pain and suffering, as well as loss of future amenities and happiness.
The claimant’s plea was that despite having suffered severe brain damage, been hospitalised for nearly five months, undergoing three major brain operations, and still being in a coma, the High Court had only given him $25,000 in “pain and suffering.”
The claimant went on to say that the vehicular accident had left him completely disabled, and that he would have to live a wretched existence until he died as a result. As a result, the High Court erred in awarding merely one lakh under the heading of “loss of future comforts and happiness.”
The insurance company, on the other hand, argued in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Others (2011) that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100%, the need to award compensation separately under the heads of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear, and only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under those heads.
The Supreme Court’s Decisions
The apex court held that the High Court’s judgement of compensation of Rs. 2 lakh under the headings of pain and suffering was not reasonable, given that the claimant had been hospitalised for a long period and was receiving medical care, as well as having had many surgeries.
As a result, it increased the amount to ten lakh rupees.
“We are of the opinion that if the amount of compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is increased to Rs.10 lakh it can be said to be a reasonable amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering,” the Court ruled.
The compensation awarded under the heading of loss of amenities and happiness was likewise on the low side, according to the highest court.
As a result, the amount was increased to ten lakh rupees.
“We believe that, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation under the heading loss of amenities and happiness should be increased to ten lakhs from the one lakhs awarded by the High Court.”
As a result, it partially granted the appeal and increased the amount of compensation to $1,41,94,333, plus interest at the rate of 6% per year.
On behalf of the appellant, Karunakar Mahalik, an Advocate-on-Record, appeared.
Prerna Mehta, an advocate-on-record, represented the respondent.
